Theme in discourse: 'thematic progression' and 'method of development' re-evaluated Abstract Fries (1981) hypothesises that the textual phenomena of 'thematic progression' (TP) (Daneš 1974) and 'method of development' (MOD) provide discourse evidence for the function proposed by Halliday (1967) for Theme, in particular that 'initial position in the sentence, or sentence-level Theme, means "point of departure of the sentence as message"'. This paper discusses the theoretical basis for this hypothesis, in particular the relation between TP and MOD, and reviews previous empirical research. Further research conducted by the author is described, into global proportions of TP, TP patterning, and the relation between TP and rhematic progression (RP) in a small corpus of 80 short argumentative texts. It was found that only small proportions of either argumentative text, or high-quality argumentative text could be considered as having a MOD. It was also found
80
Embed
Theme in discourse: 'thematic development' · Web viewIn discourse analysis literature outside SFL, by contrast, the MOD concept appears to have attracted little notice. The...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Theme in discourse: 'thematic progression' and 'method of development' re-evaluated
Abstract
Fries (1981) hypothesises that the textual phenomena of 'thematic progression' (TP) (Daneš
1974) and 'method of development' (MOD) provide discourse evidence for the function
proposed by Halliday (1967) for Theme, in particular that 'initial position in the sentence,
or sentence-level Theme, means "point of departure of the sentence as message"'. This
paper discusses the theoretical basis for this hypothesis, in particular the relation between
TP and MOD, and reviews previous empirical research. Further research conducted by the
author is described, into global proportions of TP, TP patterning, and the relation between
TP and rhematic progression (RP) in a small corpus of 80 short argumentative texts. It was
found that only small proportions of either argumentative text, or high-quality
argumentative text could be considered as having a MOD. It was also found that texts had
comparable levels of TP and RP. It is concluded that MOD is not a universal feature of
discourse organisation, and therefore not conclusive evidence for Fries's original
hypothesis.
Theme in discourse: 'thematic progression' and 'method of development' re-
evaluated*
1 Introduction
In this article I review the theoretical and empirical basis for two closely-related concepts
which have been posited as being of use in discourse analysis, Thematic Progression
(hereafter TP) and Method of Development (hereafter MOD). I also report some research of
my own into the empirical basis for these concepts (part of a larger enquiry into Theme
described in Crompton 2003).
TP and MOD are associated with claims made for the function of Hallidayan Theme, a
concept which bridges the syntax and discourse levels of linguistic description. There are
perhaps three groups of people to whom TP/MOD may be of interest: syntacticians
interested in the claim that there is evidence from discourse to justify Theme as a unit of
syntactic analysis; discourse analysts interested in the claim that syntactic Theme expounds
discourse structure; composition theorists interested in the claim that certain kinds of
Thematic behaviour are associated with rhetorical competence.
2 Fries (1981) reconsidered
2.1 The status of TP/MOD
TP/MOD first appeared in linguistic theory in Fries (1981). Fries's paper seeks to address a
problem with Halliday's account of Theme: defining the meaning or function of Theme
satisfactorily. Halliday (1967) and (1985) set out unambiguous accounts of the form of
Theme but explained its function using metaphors: “the point of departure of the
message…the starting point for the message… what the clause is going to be about”
(1985:38-39). Fries (1981) can be seen as having anticipated the criticism that intuition-
2
based metaphors such as these cannot be empirically validated. This criticism was in due
course levelled:
Perhaps he [Halliday] is tuned into language in a way that the rest of us are incapable of,
but those of us who can't easily pick out the parts of a clause which define "what it is
going to be about", or its "point of departure" are simply unable to decide whether any of
his claims about themes are right or wrong. (Hudson 1986:797)
A similar criticism of Hallidayan Theme appears in Givon (1995) the burden of which is
that because the communicative function of Theme has not been defined independently of
its form claims about Theme are empirically unfalsifiable and theoretically circular. Fries
accepted the validity of such criticism: “no real argument has been brought forward to
justify the statement that the Theme or beginning of a group, clause, or sentence means 'the
point of departure of the message expressed by that unit'” (Fries 1981:4). Fries's remedy
was to mount a defence based on "textual evidence" from "connected text". The detail of
Fries's defence is complex and discussed in greater detail below but in essence he argues
that the individual sentence Themes collectively may form noticeable patterns and that
these patterns play a text-structuring role. In terms of discourse analysis, Fries’s (1981)
implicit claim that a text's structure can be detected independently of the text's context is an
unusually strong claim for a purely linguistic analysis of discourse.
Fries (1981) has been influential within the school of Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL): Martin (2001) describes Fries's paper as "seminal" and "canonical" and Fries (1981)
is often cited by SFL scholars, most notably perhaps Halliday (1985), as a key to explaining
the function of Hallidayan Theme (e.g. Matthiessen 1992, 1995; Martin 1992; Thompson
1996). In discourse analysis literature outside SFL, by contrast, the MOD concept appears
3
to have attracted little notice. The contributions of Hallidayan Theme to debate on
information flow and structure within clauses and sentences and the Halliday and Hasan
(1976) model of cohesion are well-known and commonly cited but the interaction of
Theme and cohesion in MOD/TP theory appears not to be so well-known. A recent edited
collection surveying discourse analysis (Schiffrin et al. 2001) refers to MOD in a
contribution by a leading SFL scholar, entitled 'Cohesion and Texture' (Martin 2001). Other
contributions entitled 'Discourse and Information Structure' (Ward and Birner 2001) and
'The Linguistic Structure of Discourse' (Polanyi 2001) make no reference to TP/MOD,
however. In other recent introductions to discourse analysis, there are several references to
Theme but none to TP/MOD (van Dijk 1997; Johnstone 2001).
Some scholars have questioned the text-structuring role claimed for TP/MOD. The
authors of another survey of discourse analysis illustrate the three types of Danešian TP and
argue that descriptive texts organised round time or location are well known for syntactic
patterning of sentence-initial adverbials and clauses. They continue:
It is doubtful, however, whether we can generalise this technique to a topic development
strategy for all non-narrative texts, as seems to be implied by Winter (1982) and Fries
(1983). (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 1997).
Models of discourse structure from scholars with a similar Firthian background to that
of Hallidayan SFL also appear to discount TP/MOD as text-structuring. Hoey's (1991)
strongly cohesion-influenced Patterns of Lexis in Text, contains no reference to TP/MOD.
Sinclair (1993, 1994) proposes a dynamic model of text structure in which there are two
kinds of cohesion: (i) that which accomplishes encapsulation of sentence-level constituents
of previous text and (ii) that which does not. Into the latter category he assigns much
4
cohesive patterning, including lexical cohesion, which is "not regarded as textual in nature
[…] not clearly structural" (Sinclair 1994:16).
From a composition theory perspective, Vande Kopple (1991: 339) drew attention to the
potential applicability of TP/MOD theory and suggested several pertinent research
questions, e.g. 'Do all texts have an identifiable method of development […]?' and 'What
are the most prevalent methods of development in contemporary English prose?' To my
knowledge, these questions have not been addressed.
In summary, Fries's (1981) claim that TP/MOD plays a role in expounding discourse
structure, has been accepted within SFL but either disputed or largely overlooked outside
SFL. What I would like to do in this paper is to re-evaluate TP/MOD, first considering their
theoretical basis and then looking at empirical evidence relating to them.
2.2 Problems in evaluating the core claims for TP/MOD
The core claims regarding TP and MOD in Fries (1981) are the following:
Step 1: Thematic progression correlates with the structure of a text.
Step 2: Thematic content correlates with the method of development of a text (and the
nature of the text). (Fries 1981:4)
Evaluating these hypotheses is difficult for a number of reasons. One of these is that neither
Fries nor subsequent Theme theorists thought it necessary to attempt definitions of the
terms used: TP was a concept borrowed from Daneš (1974) and MOD is treated as a
commonplace rhetorical term. I think it is helpful to recognise that following the adoption
of Fries’s (1981) ideas, when these concepts have been referred to in SFL literature (e.g.
Halliday 1985, Martin 1992, Matthiessen 1992, Thompson 1996) it is generally as
components of a specifically Hallidayan model of Theme in discourse. For them to serve
5
Fries’s original purpose, however, which was to provide independent evidence of the
validity of Hallidayan Theme, they need to be viewed as concepts independent of
Hallidayan Theme.
A second and related difficulty in evaluating claims about TP/MOD is that the relation
between the two concepts is unclear. Some overlap would appear inevitable but the precise
nature and the degree of the overlap is a matter for interpretation. TP and MOD are both
semantic and structural text properties. In his abstract Fries states that thematic content
correlates not only with TP but with "if the passage is outlinable, the outline structure of the
passage" (1981:1). My own reading would lead me to interpret Fries (1981) as intending
the following relation between TP and MOD: TP is the superordinate term and MOD refers
to a text structure based on one of the three TP types described in TP theory (Constant).
However, it seems clear from the SFL literature that a more prevalent interpretation (e.g.
Halliday 1985) is the following: MOD is the superordinate term for a text structure based
on any of the three TP types (Constant, Linear, Derived). The concepts of TP and MOD
have coalesced within subsequent SFL literature: Ventola and Mauranen, for example,
write of "all the major methods of thematic development" (1991:476) and the hybrid term
"thematic development" appears in the title and introduction of an edited collection on
Theme (Ghadessy 1995). To ensure completeness of coverage, I have chosen to designate
the two concepts by the awkward but unified label 'TP/MOD'.
To these terminological difficulties in evaluating TP/MOD must be added two more
concerning their epistemological status. First, there is some ambivalence in the literature as
to what extent TP and MOD are everyday linguistic phenomena and to what extent they are
ideal abstractions. Are they principles of linguistic description or rhetorical prescription?
6
Do all texts have TPs and MODs – just as all sentences have Themes – or only rhetorically
effective texts? Do all rhetorically effective texts have TPs and MODs or only some? The
concept names themselves imply a degree of universality, i.e. that there is a semantic
progression in the cumulative sentence Themes of any text and that this Theme-based
progression is the method by which that text is developed. Fries (1981) could be
interpreted narrowly as hypothesising that where texts have a clear text structure, that text
structure correlates with TP and that where texts have MODs these correlate with thematic
content. In some cases, however, Fries seems to have been interpreted as hypothesising
more broadly that all texts have TPs which correlate with text structure and all texts have
MODs which correlate with thematic content, as exemplified in the following statement:
The choice of clause Themes plays a fundamental part in the way discourse is organized;
it is this, in fact, which constitutes what is often known as the "method of development" of
the text. (Halliday 1985:62)
A second epistemological difficulty in evaluating TP/MOD is that the more universal
statements italicised above seem in places (as in the last quotation) to have been interpreted
not as hypotheses to test but as already proven principles. Matthiessen, to take another
example, argues that: “thematic selections have been shown to key into [MOD] (see Fries
1981, for the original research)” (1995:26). MOD's discourse function has been further
explained by means of new metaphors, for example “[a] lens, an orientation, a perspective,
a point of view, a perch, a purchase” (Martin 1992:489). MOD has been positioned within
larger theoretical frameworks, also often associated with new metaphors – periodicity
(Halliday 1985; Matthiessen 1992, Martin 1995b), scaffolding (Martin 1995a), logogenetic
7
ideational networks (Matthiessen 1995). Such assimilation into larger theory may suggest
that TP/MOD are conceived of as universal rather than contingent properties of texts.
If TP/MOD were indeed textual universals, what would remain for research would
simply be the details of variation across genres. In this paper, I would like to step
backwards a little, treat Fries's Steps 1 and 2 as hypotheses to be tested, and examine the
evidence for and against them.
2.3 Evidence for claims in discourse
Regarding the general issue of evidence for research hypotheses in discourse analysis,
Tomlin et al. (1997) suggest that there "are three principal methodological strategies
employed in the analysis of text and discourse: (1) introspection-based analysis, (2) text
counting methods, and (3) experimental and quasi-experimental methods”. In this typology,
the methodology of Fries (1981) can be seen as a type (1) strategy – introspection-based:
Argumentation consists largely of documenting numerous examples congruent with one's
[theoretical] definition and hypotheses (Tomlin et al. 1997:101).
Martin (1992; 1995a; 1995b) and Matthiessen (1992; 1995) have written defending and
refining Theme using the same introspection-based methodology as Fries (1981), that is, by
documenting examples of TP/MOD in selected texts. As well as introspection, insofar as
Fries (1981) sought the evidence of third party informants as to the comprehensibility of
texts with manipulated Themes, he ventured a little into type (3) strategy – quasi-
experimental methods.
The main weakness of Fries’s (1981) own evidence for his hypotheses is its paucity.
The claim about correlation of TP and text structure, for example, is supported by the
evidence of two analysed paragraphs: how far these paragraphs can be considered
8
representative of text perceived as well-structured is not clear. Significantly, Fries himself
appears to regard Fries (1981) as in need of empirical support. Fries and Francis over ten
years later argued there was a need "to collect and analyse far more data" (Fries and Francis
1992:52). In a 1995 review of work published on Theme since Fries (1981), Fries describes
that article as having made two hypotheses (concerning TP/MOD) and adds two further
hypotheses (concerning Theme and genre, and Theme and generic elements of structure).
He argues that work published on Theme since 1981 "has generally supported the four
hypotheses" but argues for "a considerable expansion of the data which are used to test
them" (Fries 1995b:339), pointing out limitations in the size and spread of the data samples
used in previous studies. In discussing the lack of "robustness"' of previous empirical
studies Fries implies that, even in principle, introspection-based methods are insufficient to
prove generalisability. It seems clear to me that analysis of further selected texts (e.g.
Matthiessen 1995; Martin 1995a) per se cannot be relied on to support a general claim
about TP/MOD in discourse, any more than, say, the continuing citation of selected texts
written in blank verse would support a claim that all texts are written in blank verse. By the
same token of course, the continuing citation of selected texts which do not fit a particular
claim would not necessarily undermine it. What is required is to analyse representative
samples of language collected independently of criteria suggested by the claim.
Rather than replicating Fries's (1981) introspection-based methodology, one way to
confirm/disconfirm his hypotheses would be to employ a different methodology. Tomlin et
al. argue that “the best overall strategy in studies of discourse semantics" is "to provide
convincing evidence from an array of studies” (1997:102). The research reviewed below
and my own research employed a text-counting (type 2) methodology, in which "critical
9
theoretical notions are operationalised through a set of heuristic counting procedures"
(Tomlin et al. 1997:101).
Because form and function are so tightly knit in TP/MOD theory, operationalising the
"critical theoretical notions" is important. In discussing research on the relation between
language form and communicative function Givon points out:
If two entities A and B are said to correlate, then neither can partake in the other's
definition; otherwise stating that they "correlate" is stating a tautology. (Givon 1995:309).
To say anything worth saying about the relation between TP and text structure, then, a
definition of text structure is required which is independent of Theme. Similarly, any claim
about correlation of thematic content and MOD requires a Theme-independent definition of
MOD. In order to carry out empirical research on TP/MOD, two sets of operationalisations
are required: first, for the Theme-bound concepts (thematic progression and content);
second, for the non-Theme-bound discourse constructs (text structure and textual method of
development).
When the occurrence of these features in texts has been analysed and quantified, the
claim that these features correlate (TP with text structure, thematic content with MOD) can
be tested. To do this it is necessary to be specific about the details of the correlations
hypothesised: as Givon (1995:306) argues, to carry out research into functional grammar it
is necessary "to make hypotheses about form-function association explicit enough so that
they generate explicit factual predictions". It is then possible "to subject such factual
predictions to falsificatory testing" (Givon 1995:306).
In the next section I shall review the core concepts of TP/MOD from a theoretical
perspective, and attempt to flesh out what form the correlations might take. I shall go on to
10
formulate some specific predictions arising from the hypothesised correlations and review
the findings from previous text-counting empirical work in the terms of these predictions.
Finally, I shall describe further research of my own into the extent to which the predictions
are fulfilled in a small corpus of argumentative texts.
2.4 The core concepts of TP/MOD
2.4.1 TP and text structure
If Fries's were the first use of the term, TP might be interpreted as simply the global set of
Themes in a text considered from a dynamic perspective. However, Fries borrows from
Daneš (1974) a typological modelling of how Themes are connected with previous textual
content, reproduced here as Figure 1. What sometimes appears to have been overlooked is
that because Fries was working from a different account of Theme from Daneš, his account
of TP necessarily differs from Daneš's. Essentially, Daneš (1974) works within the
Praguean tradition according to which Thematicity is determined contextually rather than
syntactically. Theme, treated as non-Rheme, is discovered indirectly, employing "a
procedure using wh-questions, prompted by the given context and situation, for eliciting the
rheme" (Daneš 1974: 114). Practically this means that in Figure 1 "the formula TR the
order of symbols does not necessarily correspond to the sequence of expressions in a
particular sentential utterance based on this formula" (Daneš 1974:118). (It seems
appropriate to assume, however, that the vertical arrows, indicating the "contextual
connection" of utterances (Daneš 1974:112) transfer unchanged to Hallidayan TP.)